Against the booming new tea beverage industry, market competition grows increasingly fierce. This typical IP dispute heard by the Hohhot IP Court involves national top tea chain Mixue Ice Cream & Tea, fully demonstrating courts’ tough stance on trademark free-riding and brand piggybacking.
Case Overview
Mixue Ice Cream & Tea Co., Ltd. owns the exclusive right to a series of registered trademarks including "Mixue Bingcheng" and "Mixue". Through years of nationwide promotion and operation, the brand boasts strong distinctiveness and high public recognition.
A defendant company registered the "Mi Nian Xue" trademark series. Starting September 2023, it licensed the marks to franchise stores across Hohhot, Baotou, Zhuozi County (Ulanqab) in Inner Mongolia to sell fruit juices, milk tea, ice cream and other tea drinks.
All franchised stores displayed "Mi Nian Xue" and misspelled "Mi Nian Xue" signs on storefronts and interior decoration. The identical marks were also printed on product packaging, straws and other accessories.
Believing such conduct constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition, Mixue Ice Cream & Tea filed a lawsuit, demanding a cease-and-desist order, compensation for economic losses and reasonable legal fees, plus a public statement in local newspapers to eliminate adverse impacts.
Court Trial & Core Judging Standards
1. Identification of Trademark Infringement
-
"Mixue" in "Mixue Bingcheng" is an invented coined term. Long-term commercial use has endowed it strong distinctiveness and widespread popularity.
-
The core recognizable element of the defendant’s composite logo is "Mi Nian Xue". Its font, pronunciation and literal meaning are highly similar to "Mixue Bingcheng" and "Mixue". When used on franchised catering services, the similarity is sufficient to mislead consumers about product source.
-
Evidence showed franchised outlets adopted the same red tone as Mixue Ice Cream & Tea for storefront and interior decoration. Ordinary consumers would easily mistakenly believe there exists a business connection between the two brands.
The court ruled the "Mi Nian Xue" logo is confusingly similar to Mixue’s registered trademarks, confirming trademark infringement by the defendant.
2. Identification of Unfair Competition
While single similarities in menus, packaging, store layout and bar counters cannot alone cause confusion, multiple franchised stores copied Mixue Ice Cream & Tea’s signature red facade plus white walls with red waistline decoration. When combined with similar menus and counter designs, the overall imitation easily misleads the public and constitutes unfair competition.
3. Defense: Valid Trademark Prior to Invalidation
The defendant argued its use was legitimate because the trademark was still registered at the time of use. The court applied Article 47 of the Trademark Law of China: a trademark declared invalid shall be deemed never to have existed, so the defendant’s use cannot be recognized as legitimate authorized use.
4. Determination of Compensation Amount
The court calculated damages by referencing franchise fees agreed in licensing contracts, the number of filed franchise stores and the scope of infringing logo usage across outlets.
Final Judgment
The defendant was ordered to immediately halt all trademark infringement and unfair competition acts; pay 800,000 yuan for economic losses plus 140,000 yuan in reasonable litigation expenses (totaling ¥940,000); and publish a public statement on Inner Mongolia Business Daily to eliminate negative impacts.
Dissatisfied with the first-instance ruling, the defendant appealed to the High People’s Court of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, which dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
Additional factors supporting the ruling:
The defendant’s legal representative first filed for similar trademark registration back in 2018, which was later invalidated at Mixue Ice Cream & Tea’s request. Subsequent new trademark applications from the company were also invalidated one after another, proving its intentional tendency to copy well-known brand names. Baidu search records also showed consumers confused the two brands and questioned their potential affiliation.
Case Takeaways
This judgment clarifies judicial regulation over trademark piggybacking and unfair competition. Courts will strictly restrain operators with repeated failed similar trademark applications and comprehensive imitation of rival brand decoration and logos.
All market players shall operate in good faith and develop independent original brands. For franchising enterprises, full trademark legitimacy review is mandatory before brand licensing, otherwise huge compensation risks will arise.
